Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-11-03
THEY MUST HANG.
iHz sUPRggg COURT AND THE CASE
OF THg AEAsC sIsrs.
The Illinois Jury Law Constitutional-Ihe
Application for Writ OF
Error Befused.
INV lelerrnnh to the Dispatch. ]

five minutes in reading. The Chief JUS
tice began reading his opinion at five
minutes past II and finished 1t with the
announcement OF denial of the writ at
1910 o'clock. The decision OF the court
is unanimous.
The following is the text of the opin-
ion, omitting some of the citations OF
precedents
SnDrcmc court Of me Taitcd States,
Ocfobcr Term, 1887, crParte. IN
the Mqttcr of 1U9Vst Spies, M'chact
.ScLwab, Oscgr Nccbc, San"cf
FIclFcn, AlbCrt u. Parsons, Gcorgf
Eaqcl. .idoiph Fyschcr, and LOHis
Lisqg, Petitioners. 1ppUcatiOn for
IHOwaRcc Of Writ Gt Error n me
.0VDrcmc CART Of N,c S'dtc Of Hti-
aOis.
81. Chief-Justice Waite delivered the
/ opinion of the court
/ When, as in this case, the Application
/ IL made to us on the suggestion OF one OF
our rumber to whom n similar applica-
ton had been previously addressed for
allowance of writ of error to the highest
court of the State under section IO9 OF
the Revised Statutes, it is our duty to
aseertain not only whether any question
reyicyable here was made and decided IN
the proper court below, but whether 1t Is
of character TO justify us in bringing
tho Judgment here for re-examiuatlon.
In. our opinion the writ ought not to be
allowed by the court if it appears from
/ the face OF the record that the decision
of the Federal question, which IS COM
plained of. was so plainly right rs not to
require argument. ami cspeclflly II IL Is
| in accordance with our own well-conSld-
cred judgments in similar cases. When,
under section , of our Rule 6, a motion TO
affirm is united with a motion to dismiss
for want Of jurisdiction, the practice has
/ been 10 grant the motion 10 affirm when
the question on which our jurisdiction
/ depends was so manifcstly decided right
that the case ought not to be held foi
further argument The proprIety OF
adopting IA similar rule upon motions IN
open court Tor the allowance OF a writ Is
apparent, for certainly we would not be
justified as a colrt in sending out writ
10 bring M for review the Judgment OF
the highest court Of a State, when 1t \
apparent onsthe face OF the record thd'
it would he our duty to grant the mo
ton to affirm as soon as 1t was made II
proper form. In the present case W.
have had the benefit of argument N sup
port Of the application, and while coun
sci haze not deemed it their duty t.
20 fully into the merits Of the question
involved. they have shown rs distinct,
what the decisions were Of which the.
} complain aud how the ques ion arose
r I'm this way we are able to determine a
, court in session whether the error
b alleged are such rs 10 justify us IN bring
iug the case here for review. We pr1
cced then to consider what the question
] are On which, if 1t exists at all, our lurls
- dicton depends The particular prov
% sions Of tue Constitution Of tue Unite
, States on which tine counsel rely ar
found in Articles ~, V, VI, and NV
% Of the amendments. These amendment
! are here quoted.
} That the first ten articles OF the amenC
| ment were not intended to limit IN
J powers OF State governments in respeC
Y 10 their own citizens, but to operate O
e the national Government alone, was dt
D cided more than half century ago, an
= that decision has been steadily adhere
I to since.
i After citing a long list OF precedei
{ decisions the court proceeds to say
u WAS contendcd, hogever, IN the argi
r ment that though originally the first t.
+ amendments were adopted as Limitation
It on the Federal power. yet in 50 far
they secure and recognize the fund
n mental rights, cOmmOn-law rights,
Y man, they make them the prlvlle9
IS and immunities OF man as n citizen
Y the United States, and cannot now
II abridged by State underline fourteen
amendment. In other words, while Il
ten amendments as limitation on pow
only apply to the Federal Goyernme
and not to States, yet in so lar as the
> declare or recognize the rights OF pc
= sons. these rights are theirs as citizens
J the United States, and the fourteen
q amendment, as to such rights, limits Il
= State power. rs the ten amendments hi
10 limited the Federal power. .
IL II is also cOntended that the provislt
y of the fourteenth amendment which d
u clares that no State shall deprive al
20 person of life, liberty, or property wit
~ out due process OF law implies tn
II every person charged with crime in
State shall be entitled to trial by an il
~ ~ partial jury and shall not be compel
II to testify against himself. The @
~ iections are, in brief-hrst, that t
.o statute OF the State, as construed by t
- - court, deprived the petitioners OF tr
~ by an impartial jury ; and second, Il
u. Spies was compelled to give eylder
mno m against himself.
We Before considering whether the CO
I! stitution of the United States has
- effect which is claimed, it is proper
lc inquire whether the Federal questiC
n relied on in fact arise on the face. OF t
7' record. One statute to which OUiect
'lo is made was approved March II, 10
and has been in force since July lsl
that year. The complaint Is that
trial court, acting under this statute 9
ID in accordance with its requiremeI
lys compelled the petitioners against Il
lth will TO submit to trial by Il Jury t
,ht was not impartial, and this depri
on them OF one OF the fundamental rig
Ter which they had as citizens ofthe Uni
lld States under the national CONSTITUTE
/ 1t and If the sentence of the court Is earn
ID into execution they will be deprived
nth their lives without due process OF law
etc In Hopt rs. Utah, 40 l. 5. 439
er. was decided by this purt that whe
ene "challenge by defendant in Grim
ck, action to a juror for bias, actual or
to. piled, is disallowed and the juror
or thereupon peremptorily challenged
no the defendant and excused and an
partial and competent juror IS o6tal
,rts in his place, no injury is done the
fendant if until the jury is completed
has other peremptory challenges wi
he can use"; aud so in Hayes ps.
- souri,, 100 L. S. II, it was said (;
zen zen right to challenge is the right to re-
iot not to select juror. If from those
q, remain al impartial jury is obtained
yea constitutional right of tue accuse
zen maintained" Of the correctness
'oo VI these rulings we entertain no doubt
sed We are, therefore. confined In